How the American Meteorological Society Justified Publishing Half-Truths

Background: In 2000, the Bulletin of the Meteorological Society
published “Impacts of Extreme Weather and Climate on Terrestrial Biota" by
Camille Parmesan, Terry Root, and Michael Willig. The paper introduced to the
peer-reviewed literature analyses by Parmesan that extreme weather events had
caused an extinction event in California’s
Sierra Nevada and advocated the extreme weather was the mechanism by which
global warming was driving animals northward and upward as Parmesan claimed in
her first controversial
paper discussed here. According to Google Scholar, the BAMS paper has been
cited by 324 consensus articles. Thomson
Reuter'sEssential
Science Indicators
report that by December 2009, Parmesan went on to be ranked #2 among highly cited authors
for papers devoted expressly to global
warming and climate change.

Below is a map of Parmesan's study site first published in Singer, M., and C. D.
Thomas (1996) Evolutionary responses of a butterfly metapopulation to human and
climate-caused environmental variation. American
Naturalist, vol. 148, p. S9–S39. I have added call out boxes. Notice how surgically "climate changed" supposedly killed individuals on the annual plant Collinsia (Xs) in the logged clearling while just a few feet away the same species was originally reported to be thriving on its normal host plant in undisturbed habitat. The observations of those thriving populations were later "amputated" from Parmesan's extinction story that she spun in “Impacts of Extreme Weather and Climate on Terrestrial Biota

Parmesan et al biased their conclusion by
omitting observations that all other individuals in the surrounding natural
habitat had survived better than had ever been observed during the same weather
events. Only the butterflies that had recently colonized a novel plant species
in a highly disturbed logged area had been extirpated. If all observations were
honestly presented, it would have been both an example of nature’s resilience
and an example of the effect of landscape changes on microclimates. By omitting
half of the data, their paper manufactured an illusion
of extreme climate catastrophe as discussed here. So I requested an
official retraction. It was no more honest than Enron officials leaving half
the data off their books.

Nonetheless, Parmesan’s
illusion was immediately adopted by top climate scientists David R. Easterling,
Gerald A. Meehl, Stanley A. Changnon, and Thomas R. Karl who immediately invited
Parmesan to co-author the paper Climate Extremes: Observations, Modeling, and
Impacts published in the journal Science. The bulk of that paper showed there
was no increase in heat waves, droughts or other catastrophic events, but they
then offered Parmesan’s half-truths to suggest just few extreme events related
to climate change will cause grave ecological disruptions writing “In wild
plants and animals, climate-inducedextinctions, distributional and
phenological changes, and species’ range shifts are being documented at an
increasing rate.” However that paper’s only example of “climate-induced extinctions” were Parmesan’s butterflies and
amphibian extinctions at Monte Verde as discussed in the
unsupported story of the Golden Toad discussed here. This new paper,
according to Google Scholar, was then cited by over 1790 consensus articles.

In light of the rightful objections that
“pal-review” can create a false illusion of a paper’s scientific objectivity
(that resulted in Copernicus
Publishing terminating the skeptical journal Pattern Recognition in Physics), I
encourage climate scientists James Annan, Gavin Schmidt and others who objected
to “pal-review” to join me in asking the American Meteorological Society
to reprimand and retract papers that knowingly omit data that undermine scientific
integrity. I encourage
readers to respectfully email the American Meteorological Society amspubs@ametsoc.org or kheideman@ametsoc.organd share your opinion
about whether or not their reasons for not retracting the paper were valid and
in the best interest of science. Dr. Rosenfeld at jrosenfeld@ametsoc.org was the editor
with whom I was communicating, but he mentioned having some health issues, so
to be kind I suggest your opinions be sent to the first two email addresses.

Here is my reply to their justifications of
manipulating data presentation:

Dear Dr. Rosenfeld,

Scientific conclusions
command greater respect over a casual opinion because 1) it is assumed rigorous
methods were used to eliminate any other confounding factors that could equally
explain the phenomenon in question, and 2) it is assumed that the editors and
peer reviewers double-checked to ensure all the known confounding factors had
been carefully considered and eliminated. The publication of Parmesan et all
(2000) “Impacts of Extreme Weather and Climate on Terrestrial Biota” failed to report
well documented confounding factors that would have completely altered her
conclusions. I assumed that once the editors became aware that contradictory
evidence was knowingly omitted, that the paper would be retracted. I am not
only disappointed by AMS’s decision, but frankly, I am appalled by the AMS’ justifications.
It undermines the very foundations of proper scientific investigation and
reporting. Your justifications are
in red, my comments in black.

Your first argument
stated:

1. AMS
guidelines stipulate that we look for “convincing evidence that the main
substance or conclusions of a paper…are erroneous.” The main substance of
Parmesan et al. is the “evidence…that extreme weather events can be implicated
as mechanistic drivers of broad ecological responses to climate trends.” The
paper presents convincing evidence of this from a wide variety of sources. In
addition, both the main conclusions--that “extreme weather events…are,
therefore, essential to include in predictive biological models, such as
doubled CO2 scenarios”--and the related recommendations (sections 7-9) rest on
sufficient evidential weight. The negation of one piece of the evidence would
not change the validity of the paper’s main substance or conclusions: thus
retraction is not warranted.

You are arguing that
publishing an untruth because it only comprises about 15% that paper is totally
acceptable. Such reasoning is very disturbing. For example even though the
“substance” of a paper advocated the benefits of 6 or 7 cancer treatments, if
one treatment was known to be falsified, would you not retract the paper
because it could have serious repercussions? Just what percentage of misleading evidence is considered
acceptable in the AMS guidelines? Just because Parmesan’s paper also listed
examples of organisms reacting to weather, it does not justify publishing a
knowingly faulty conclusion.

Even your claim that her
paper does not compromise the paper’s “main substance” is debatable. Parmesan’s
first paragraph suggests the “main substance” was indeed built on her
manipulated evidence. She wrote, “The two most commonly measured forms of
biological response to climate change are changes in species’ geographical
distributions and in timing of activity. We begin with a discussion of
distributional shifts, since at present these are better understood in relation
to extreme weather events.”

Citing her previous
controversial papers she concludes her introduction stating, “Mounting evidence
indicates that species are currently responding to twentieth century warming by
shifting their ranges poleward and upward in altitude” arguing “infrequent and
severe climatic events, via short-term responses at the population level,
appear to have driven a gradual range shift in this butterfly species.” But the
butterflies never shifted their range as the populations that thrived remained
stronger and healthier than before. She had observed butterflies in the natural
habitat thrived, demonstrating the butterflies were well adapted and that the
weather was not extreme, but most beneficial. Only by omitting those observations
could she ever suggest extreme weather was driving the butterflies northward in
support of global warming theory.

2. Parmesan et al. is a review paper and thus necessarily omits substantial
amounts of information in order to interpret a wide selection of published
literature. The selected facts from Singer and Thomas 1996 and Thomas et al.
1996 are correct and inclusion of the omitted facts wouldn’t alter the point
that E. editha studies “have implicated three extreme weather events in carving
a pathway to extinction” (or as you put it, “Weather is involved in each and
every wildlife boom or bust”). The omission is reasonable given the focus of
the review paper.

It is absolutely appalling
that you defend “omitting
substantial amounts of information” by simply characterizing her work as a
“review” paper. In fact her interpretation was not a review, but was the first
time such an analyses was introduced into the peer reviewed literature. Based on false credibility, the
manipulated sections of this “review” paper were then erroneously repeated in
other papers by our top climate scientists.

The main substance of the
authors’ “review” suggested that small changes in temperature or extreme
weather COULD have dramatic impacts.
In one example the author highlighted how the temperature in turtles’
nests controls the hatchlings’ gender. That is true. But turtles have shown
tremendous resilience through 60 million years of far greater climate change.
Parmesan mentioned that indeed the real threat to turtles has been landscape
changes, not climate change. If Parmesan had reported the observation of
thriving natural populations of butterflies that benefitted during those
weather events, their review article would have also supported the fact that
natural systems are quite resilient to weather, and the main concern is
landscape change not climate change. In fact Parmesan acknowledged “studies of
biological responses during the Pleistocene glaciations indicate that natural
systems were fairly resilient to rapid climate change.” By manipulating her
data presentation in her butterfly studies she tried to suggest animal
populations are now more fragile.

Furthermore the paper
offered absolutely no meteorological evidence to support her contention that
the weather was abnormally “extreme”. The weather was characterized as extreme
only by associating it with the extirpation of a small group of butterflies
that had opportunistically colonized a highly disturbed habitat. If the
observations of increased survival just 20 feet away were also included,
characterizing the weather as deadly or extreme would lose all justification.

3. Your objection to Parmesan et al. 2000 stems from a difference of
interpretation. Singer and Thomas 1996 defined their sample of butterflies as
two populations forming a “metapopulation” in order to characterize source-sink
relationships. This precedent gives Parmesan et al. a reasonable basis for
omitting information about the population that thrived. By contrast, you choose
to treat the metapopulation as a single population, so as to guarantee that
mention of one requires mention of the other, and you treat it as two separate
“half populations” so as to make a distinction between natural and unnatural
populations. Differences of interpretation about separateness or naturalness of
the populations are not grounds for a retraction.

Past researchers studying
meta-population dynamics, assigned the butterflies to two different populations
based on food preference. But that most certainly DOES NOT provide a reasonable
basis for omitting the thriving populations in a climate study. By omitting the
thriving population she omitted what would normally serve as a “controlled variable” in an
experimental design.

Consider the experimental
design in a controlled growth chamber in which a researcher wants to
investigate the growth and success of caterpillars feeding on two different
plant species. Basic science requires the researcher to control for all
confounding factors, in order to isolate the effects of feeding on the
different plants. To ensure all the plants and caterpillars experienced the
same temperatures, a researcher places the caterpillars and the plants in a
growth chamber to replicate the natural range of temperatures. Now assume at
the end of such an experiment, the caterpillars on plant “A” died, but the
caterpillars on plant “B” had above average growth and survival. If the
researcher dared to argue that the climate of the growth chamber caused the
deaths, their conclusions would be immediately rejected, because the chamber’s
climate represented a “controlled variable” that equally affected both groups.
It was the choice of plants that was the deadly variable. And just because the researcher named
one group A and the other one group B, it would not only be ridiculous, but
fraudulent, to hide the results of a thriving Group B.

Below is the published map
of the study area. The circles represent the locations where butterflies
thrived on plant “B” (Pedicularis). The ‘Xs” represent where butterflies were
extirpated when feeding on plant “A” (Collinsia) after logging had removed the
preferred host plant “B”. The two different “populations” were all within a few
hundred meters of each other and as close as 20 feet away. Both populations
experienced the same “climate change” and “extreme weather” just as assuredly
as they would in a growth chamber. In the given context of attributing global
climate change as a mechanism of extinction causing range shifts, omitting the
great success of those individuals feeding on plant “B” was simply
unscrupulous. And that the AMS would justify that omission, is a dark mark on
its members and science in general that only contributes to a growing mistrust
for politicized science.

I still believe most of us
cherish what Richard P. Feynman suggests is a “kind of scientific integrity, a
principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a
kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other
causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that
you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure
the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.” In contrast AMS has leaned over
backwards to justify telling half-truths that supported catastrophic climate
change. Such frivolous and
nonsensical justifications only arouse deep suspicions that the AMS decision
not to retract has been tainted by the politics of climate change.

In “An Information
Statement of the American Meteorological Society?(Adopted by AMS Council 20
August 2012)” the society argued,
“Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many
areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing
seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and
insects.” Parmesan papers have been essential in creating the impression that
rising CO2 has shifted natural habitat. But as demonstrated in the paper under
discussion, if the whole truth was told, a much different story would emerge
and fears of ecological climate catastrophe would give way to more rational
analyses of landscape change and natural cycles.

The AMS’ climate change
statement also argued “Climate is always changing. However, many of the
observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural
variability of the climate.” But
in truth the extinction of this local butterfly population was much better
explained by natural variability and landscape changes, and that again
contradicts the AMS’s claim that natural variations can not explain current
events.

The AMS’ climate change
statement claims the “AMS Information Statement intended to provide a
trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific
issues of concern to the public at large.” Perhaps the AMS fears that
retracting a faulty paper would call attention to the possibility that there
may be more peer reviewed papers that are not so trustworthy, papers that
demand more skeptical scrutiny. By not retracting a paper that so blatantly
manipulated the data presentation, you bite off your nose to save your face.
The justifications used to avoid retracting the paper suggests the AMS
editorial policy strayed from being
“objective, nor scientifically up-to-date”.

That the AMS would justify
publishing half-truths based on technicalities and spurious precedents taints
the rest of the scientific community who strive to uphold science’s highest
standards. It undermines the public’s trust in environmental science, making it
much more difficult for us to convince others about cases where we truly need
better environmental stewardship.
Good environmental stewardship demands unadulterated science to guide
our policies, not the half-truths the AMS now condones.